To: MasonM Doctors, all of them, are blood-sucking parsites one step up on the evolutionary ladder from lawyers. They live by profiting from the misery of others, and charge exorbitantly for the privilege of merely walking through their doors. It would do no one any harm (in your sense or any other) for the medical profession in general to suffer a few financial losses.

Practice up on your capitalism, dude. If the dr suffers a financial loss... he just passes it on to the rest of his patients. Thereby doing harm through a financial loss to the rest.

Doctors, all of them, are blood-sucking parsites one step up on the evolutionary ladder from lawyers. They live by profiting from the misery of others, and charge exorbitantly for the privilege of merely walking through their doors. It would do no one any harm (in your sense or any other) for the medical profession in general to suffer a few financial losses.

Would you rather there be no medical practitioners? Perhaps we should subsidize their medical school costs, so their fees could be reduced? Last I checked, doctors save lives every day.

It would do no one any harm (in your sense or any other) for the medical profession in general to suffer a few financial losses.

Just because it "would do no one any harm," does that mean it should happen? Is it fair for me to say it wouldn't do you any harm to suffer a few financial losses? I am sure you could survive. Anybody can survive no matter how dire their financial means. To me, that does not mean they should "suffer" so.

First the concept is "physical harm" not harm. Harm includes you losing a job because the other guy is better than you because you don't get as wealthy, which is irrational because simply being better certainly isn't a crime, in fact it's a virtue that we need to get back to worshiping. Physical harm means direct physical harm to your person or your property and thus the statement becomes very clear.

Second: Insurance companies are free to put in riders in their policies saying that if you were wearing your seat belt you don't get coverage. And they should. End of problem.

Third: Utilitarianism is a ugly defect in the rationalism of the renasance. The quote from Mill was one that he made that happened to not exibit utilitiarianism and instead that of the principles of non-contradiction espoused by Aristotle. Hence we're going back almost 2500 years, not just 150.

But keep in mind that the 20th and now 21st centuries have had exactly two new philosophical ideas come about, and one of them really was already esposed in the 19th century. The first being socialism and later communism. The second was objectivism. Otherwise there as been no original ideas in philosophy (unless you include metaphysics, which isn't philosophy because there is no science) in the last 150 years thus we have to go back that far to have any philosophical debate that matters. And yes, that's a sad statement that we haven't even been debating philosophy in the last 150 years when it is the basis for everything we do. And that's the fault of Kant and everyone that listens to his crap even a little.

First the concept is "physical harm" not harm.

No, actually it's harm. If this were not so there would be no reason for laws against theft which do not do physical harm. That is certainly not what Mill was arguing.

First the concept is "physical harm" not harm.

So I should be allowed to steal, slander, drive recklessly down the wrong side of the road 100 km/hr over the speed limit, shoot guns into the air willy-nilly, and as long as no one is "physically harmed" then according to Mill I've not really broken any laws? (or should I say, not any laws that should exist.)

"However, if medical care for the person that chose self-endangerment by not wearing the seatbelt results in healthcare resources being diverted from another injured person whose injuries are not a result of self-endangerment resulting in the death of the second person then the condition of the original post is met. The decision to not wear a seatbelt has caused harm to another person.

Also, Insurance companies feel they have a right to require a minimum of saftey practice, (such as wearing a seatbelt) if they are to pay on life insurance claims. If one chooses to endanger oneself by not wearing a seatbelt one cannot expect life insurance to be paid to their estate if they were to die as a result."

Simple solution: Allow the insurance companies to not pay out if you're not wearing a seat belt, and allow medical workers to put those that were wearing a seat belt before those that weren't. There is nothing that says you have the right to be stupid and partake in the benefits of not being stupid. There is nothing that says that an insurance company has to cover stupidity. There is no reason why a doctor should not be able to choose his patients.

"No, actually it's harm. If this were not so there would be no reason for laws against theft which do not do physical harm. That is certainly not what Mill was arguing."

The physical harm is against your property which as I've said before is the same as physical harm against your person. My exact phrase that I always use is:

"Your free to do whatever you wish so long as you don't physically harm another or their property without their permission."

Or as my law professor used to put it "My right to swing my fist ends at your face."

The most fundamental of all rights is the right to do nothing. That includes doctors. They have the right to choose who they help. A society that compels a doctor to work is enforcing slavery. So there is no overhead for others because the man didn't wear a seatbelt because the doctor has the right not to treat the fool and thus not encur the costs.

One of the most basic things that you should take from John Stewart Mill's quote is that you cannot compel a man to do anything, for any reason. That includes doctors. Just because you need medical care, doesn't mean that the doctor must provide it, any more than the plantation owner that needed labour to pick the cotton had the right to force blacks to do the picking.

The principle is certainly valid. However, in determining how others are harmed is a very exhaustive thing. The seatbelt is a great example. by not wearing your seatbelt, you make it much easier for you to get injured in case of an accident. Then YOU will sue the other guy for injuring you. The other guy , and the society in general will have to pay for that. so by not wearing your seatbelt you make others pay for your injury which could have been prevented if you had your seatbelt on.

so think carefully before you disregard many rules that appear to be intrusive.